Fuel Economy Standards

To no one`s surprise, the president`s Task Force on Regulatory Relief has proposed abolition of federal fuel economy standards. The panel, chaired by Vice President George Bush, concluded that Corporate Average Fuel Economy requirements Bushare damaging the U.S. auto industry`s ability to compete in the world market and are costing Americans thousands of jobs. Even less surprisingly, proponents of fuel standards say those conclusions are based on misleading claims and inventory book juggling by General Motors and Ford.

If Congress is serious about creating more efficient cars and trucks, our elected leaders should be seeking solutions that do not lead to financial losses and job cuts. The U.S. Senate's recently passed energy bill (HR 6) sets arbitrary and unreasonably high fuel efficiency targets known as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program. It is obvious the proposed regulations do not take into account that so much of the nation's economy depends upon the auto sector. This sector of the U.S. economy is at a crossroads and market forces, not increased government regulation, will lead the way in incentivizing the industry to make more fuel-efficient cars and trucks.

WASHINGTON -- The government has decided to relax the fuel economy standards for 1987 and 1988 model year passenger cars to protect jobs in the auto industry, Transportation Department sources said Wednesday. The revised standards would be 26 miles per gallon -- down from 27.5 mpg required for model year 1985 cars, the sources said. The fuel economy standards for 1985 cars and future models originally were set for 27.5 mpg, but the government lowered the 1986 standards to 26 mpg last October.

Last week I got involved in one of those arguments that can happen only in Washington. It began innocently enough, with an attempt to ascertain whether the executive branch of the American government has the right to set fuel mileage standards -- corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, in Washington-speak -- for cars. While touring Biloxi, Miss., President Bush had declared that he would like Congress to "give me a capacity to raise CAFE standards." That implied, of course, that Bush could not require manufacturers to produce more fuel-efficient cars unless Congress allowed it. On the face of it, this seems odd. Certainly the president had such a capacity in the past, since these requirements were changed a couple of times in the 1980s.

Through my involvement with the Sierra Club, it has come to my attention that Congress is making serious plans to drill the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in an attempt to combat the rising price of oil. The exorbitant price of petroleum concerns us all, however, drilling in the Arctic is not the answer. Analysts feel that if any oil does exist there (and there is no guarantee), that it would only amount to a six-month supply, and it would take 10 years to bring it on-line. Instead of drilling the Arctic Refuge and destroying the precious habitat of polar bears, wolves, migratory birds and the calving grounds for the 129,000-member Porcupine River Caribou Herd, why not urge Congress and President Clinton to raise the corporate average fuel economy standards for light trucks and automobiles to 34 miles per gallon and 45 miles per gallon, respectively?

As the price of a barrel of oil flirts with the $50 mark, President Bush and Sen. John Kerry are promising to make the United States energy-independent. If that sounds familiar, it's because we've heard the same thing from presidents and candidates since Richard Nixon in 1973 vowed to accomplish that goal by 1980. Next year marks the 25th anniversary of his Project Independence's failure. Come 2010, it will be the 25th anniversary of the failure to hit President Ford's revised target of 1985.

DETROIT -- U.S. automakers will have an easier time with the Clinton administration than the Bush administration despite fears of increased regulatory pressures, a University of Michigan automotive analyst said. "Bill Clinton isn`t a part of the old liberal establishment that had such a negative attitude toward the auto industry," said David E. Cole, director of the University`s Office for the Study of Automotive Transportation. Detroit`s automakers fear that president-elect Clinton and vice president- elect Albert Gore Jr. may push for fuel economy standards as high as 40 miles per gallon, up from 27.5 mpg now. Automakers maintain that meeting such a standard within the 1990s would mean ending production of larger, less fuel-efficient cars and cutting thousands of more auto industry jobs.

President Bush has asked that we reduce our driving and use public transportation instead of our cars. The problem is the lack of public transportation in many areas. Where I live, the nearest bus lines are more than a mile away. Even then, I would need to change buses to get to my office, which is only 4 miles from my house. A far better way to save gasoline is to reinstitute the 55 mph speed limit. Not only would this save fuel, but also some lives. Cities should also time the traffic lights on more streets so that one would be able to drive at the stated speed limit without stopping.

Last week I got involved in one of those arguments that can happen only in Washington. It began innocently enough, with an attempt to ascertain whether the executive branch of the American government has the right to set fuel mileage standards -- corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, in Washington-speak -- for cars. While touring Biloxi, Miss., President Bush had declared that he would like Congress to "give me a capacity to raise CAFE standards." That implied, of course, that Bush could not require manufacturers to produce more fuel-efficient cars unless Congress allowed it. On the face of it, this seems odd. Certainly the president had such a capacity in the past, since these requirements were changed a couple of times in the 1980s.

ANNAPOLIS, Md. -- Federal transportation officials have ordered Maryland to rescind its new "gas guzzler" automobile tax, prompting an outcry from national environmental groups and calls for Maryland to fight what could be a precedent-setting action. In a letter to Attorney General J. Joseph Curran Jr., the chief counsel for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said Maryland could not proceed with the July 1 startup of its recently adopted law. The national fuel-economy guidelines are intended to prevent states from adopting disparate standards that could burden auto manufacturers, NHTSA`s Paul Jackson Rice said.

President Bush has asked that we reduce our driving and use public transportation instead of our cars. The problem is the lack of public transportation in many areas. Where I live, the nearest bus lines are more than a mile away. Even then, I would need to change buses to get to my office, which is only 4 miles from my house. A far better way to save gasoline is to reinstitute the 55 mph speed limit. Not only would this save fuel, but also some lives. Cities should also time the traffic lights on more streets so that one would be able to drive at the stated speed limit without stopping.

As the price of a barrel of oil flirts with the $50 mark, President Bush and Sen. John Kerry are promising to make the United States energy-independent. If that sounds familiar, it's because we've heard the same thing from presidents and candidates since Richard Nixon in 1973 vowed to accomplish that goal by 1980. Next year marks the 25th anniversary of his Project Independence's failure. Come 2010, it will be the 25th anniversary of the failure to hit President Ford's revised target of 1985.

The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week ruled that President Bush couldn't weaken federal air conditioner and heat pump standards. The administration's loss is a win for Florida's residents. The court ruling supports a common sense energy policy of conservation and efficiency. That's good news for a state where running an air conditioner on a summer day is almost seen as a God-given right. SEER standards are the a/c and heating equivalents of automobile fuel economy standards.

By Sam Roe National Correspondent and Staff reporter Geoff Dougherty contributed to this report, February 2, 2003

In the fall morning of 1993, President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore walked side by side out of the West Wing of the White House and onto a small stage on the South Lawn. There, they greeted three of the most powerful business leaders in the world: the chief executive officers of Ford, General Motors and Chrysler. Before dozens of dignitaries, the president announced that America was embarking on a technological venture as ambitious as any the nation had ever attempted. Over the next 10 years, the U.S. government and the American auto industry would combine the full weight of their resources -- billions of dollars, the best scientific minds and previously secret Cold War technologies -- to build an invention simple in concept yet critical in importance: a family car that achieved 80 miles per gallon.

In your article, "Debate on using less fuel heats up," Sen. Barbara Mikulski is quoted as saying, "American women love their SUVs and minivans because of their safety." Perhaps they're safer for their occupants, but they are a menace to other vehicles and pedestrians. In a collision between one of those monsters and a conventional sedan, there's no doubt that "Mom " would be better off, so I guess the rest of us don't count. If a pedestrian is struck by a conventional car, he has a chance of surviving.

Summertime, and the living is going to get costlier and dirtier if the White House gets its way with an appliance that has become a fixture in many American households. My apologies to the Gershwin brothers and Dubose Heyward, but I'm talking about the air conditioner, perhaps one of the most appreciated appliances after the big-screen TV. It is now a pawn in the administration's efforts to change the nation's energy policy -- for the worse. This isn't one of those columns imploring you to turn up your thermostats and work up a sweat for the glory of conservation.

If Congress is serious about creating more efficient cars and trucks, our elected leaders should be seeking solutions that do not lead to financial losses and job cuts. The U.S. Senate's recently passed energy bill (HR 6) sets arbitrary and unreasonably high fuel efficiency targets known as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program. It is obvious the proposed regulations do not take into account that so much of the nation's economy depends upon the auto sector. This sector of the U.S. economy is at a crossroads and market forces, not increased government regulation, will lead the way in incentivizing the industry to make more fuel-efficient cars and trucks.

In your article, "Debate on using less fuel heats up," Sen. Barbara Mikulski is quoted as saying, "American women love their SUVs and minivans because of their safety." Perhaps they're safer for their occupants, but they are a menace to other vehicles and pedestrians. In a collision between one of those monsters and a conventional sedan, there's no doubt that "Mom " would be better off, so I guess the rest of us don't count. If a pedestrian is struck by a conventional car, he has a chance of surviving.

Evidence is accumulating that the United States can work its way toward greater energy independence without expanding its reliance on environmentally harmful fossil fuels. The latest is a major scientific study that found vehicular fuel efficiency standards could be greatly strengthened without prohibitive costs and without significantly harming the auto industry. The report by a National Academy of Sciences panel, while acknowledging that some trade-offs would be necessary, said the standards could be increased substantially over 10 to 15 years without drastic reductions in vehicular size, weight or performance, and at a cost that could be recovered from fuel savings over the life of a vehicle.

Through my involvement with the Sierra Club, it has come to my attention that Congress is making serious plans to drill the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in an attempt to combat the rising price of oil. The exorbitant price of petroleum concerns us all, however, drilling in the Arctic is not the answer. Analysts feel that if any oil does exist there (and there is no guarantee), that it would only amount to a six-month supply, and it would take 10 years to bring it on-line. Instead of drilling the Arctic Refuge and destroying the precious habitat of polar bears, wolves, migratory birds and the calving grounds for the 129,000-member Porcupine River Caribou Herd, why not urge Congress and President Clinton to raise the corporate average fuel economy standards for light trucks and automobiles to 34 miles per gallon and 45 miles per gallon, respectively?